Role Stress, Role Reward, and Mental Health in a Multiethnic Sample of Midlife Women: Results from the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN)

Abstract Background: Little is known about the independent associations of reward and stress within specific roles with multiple measures of mental health in an ethnically diverse community sample of midlife women. The objective of this study is to examine if (1) role reward (within each role and across roles) contributes directly to mental health and buffers the negative impact of role stress and (2) associations among role occupancy, role stress, and role reward and mental health vary by race/ethnicity. Methods: With separate logistic regression analysis, we investigated cross-sectional relationships between role stress and role reward with presence/absence of high depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [CES-D≥16]), anxiety symptoms (feeling tense or nervous, irritable or grouchy, fearful for no reason, and heart pounding or racing total score≥4), or low social functioning (bottom 25th percentile of the Short-Form-36 [SF-36] social functioning subscale) in 2549 women participating in the third visit of the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a longitudinal population-based study of menopause. Results: High reward across roles attenuated the negative impact of role stress on social functioning but not on anxiety or depression. High reward marriage buffered the impact of marital stress on depression, and high reward mothering buffered the effect of maternal stress on depression and social functioning. Compared to Caucasians, Hispanics and Chinese with high stress across roles had better social functioning, and African American mothers had lower odds of high depressive symptoms. Conclusions: Role reward buffers the negative impact of stress on social functioning and depression, but not on anxiety. Minorities may respond to role stress by seeking social support.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98462/1/jwh%2E2011%2E3180.pd

Residual sleep disturbance and risk of relapse during the continuation/maintenance phase treatment of major depressive disorder with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Relapse of major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common clinical problem. This study was designed to determine whether residual sleep disturbance (insomnia and hypersomnia) predict risk of relapse during the continuation and maintenance treatment of MDD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 570 patients with MDD were treated with open-label, flexible dose fluoxetine (range 20 to 60 mg; mean dose = 45.8 mg/day; SD = 15.1) for 12 weeks. Under double blind conditions, 262 patients who achieved clinical response were randomly assigned to continue fluoxetine or to switch to placebo for 52 weeks or until relapse. Residual sleep disturbance during the baseline visit of the double-blind phase was assessed using items 4, 5, 6 (insomnia) and 22, 23, 24 (hypersomnia) of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Survival analysis was utilized to determine the effect of residual sleep disturbance on risk of relapse.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The severities of early (<it>P </it>> 0.05), middle (<it>P </it>> 0.05), late (<it>P </it>> 0.05), or total (<it>P </it>> 0.05) residual insomnia were not found to significantly predict risk of relapse during continuation and maintenance-phase treatment. Similarly, the severities of early bedtime (<it>P </it>> 0.05), oversleeping (<it>P </it>> 0.05), napping (<it>P </it>> 0.05), or total (<it>P </it>> 0.05) residual hypersomnia were not found to significantly predict risk of relapse during continuation and maintenance-phase treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The present study did not identify the severity of residual sleep disturbance among fluoxetine responders to predict risk of MDD relapse. The size of our sample may have precluded us from identifying more modest effects of residual sleep disturbance on the risk of relapse in MDD patients. Future studies are needed to further explore the relationship between residual sleep disturbance and relapse in MDD.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00427128</p

A web-based clinical decision tool to support treatment decision-making in psychiatry: a pilot focus group study with clinicians, patients and carers

Background. Treatment decision tools have been developed in many fields of medicine, including psychiatry, however benefits for patients have not been sustained once the support is withdrawn. We have developed a web-based computerised clinical decision support tool (CDST), which can provide patients and clinicians with continuous, up-to-date, personalised information about the efficacy and tolerability of competing interventions. To test the feasibility and acceptability of the CDST we conducted a focus group study, aimed to explore the views of clinicians, patients and carers. Methods. The CDST was developed in Oxford. To tailor treatments at an individual level, the CDST combines the best available evidence from the scientific literature with patient preferences and values, and with patient medical profile to generate personalised clinical recommendations. We conducted three focus groups comprising of three different participant types: consultant psychiatrists, participants with mental health diagnosis and/or experience of caring for someone with a mental health diagnosis, and primary care practitioners and nurses. Each 1-hour focus group started with a short visual demonstration of the CDST. To standardise the discussion during the focus groups, we used the same topic guide that covered themes relating to the acceptability and usability of the CDST. Focus groups were recorded and any identifying participant details were anonymised. Data were analysed thematically and managed using the Framework method and the constant comparative method. Results. The focus groups took place in Oxford between October 2016 and January 2017. Overall 31 participants attended (12 consultants, 11 primary care practitioners and 8 patients or carers). The main themes that emerged related to CDST applications in clinical practice, communication, conflicting priorities and record keeping. CDST was considered a useful clinical decision support, with recognised value in promoting clinician-patient collaboration and contributing to the development of personalised medicine. One major benefit of the CDST was perceived to be the open discussion about the possible side-effects of medications. Participants from all the three groups, however, universally commented that the terminology and language presented on the CDST were too medicalised, potentially leading to ethical issues around consent to treatment. Conclusions. The CDST can improve communication pathways between patients, carers and clinicians, identifying care priorities and providing an up-to-date platform for implementing evidence-based practice, with regard to prescribing practices

The Factors Influencing Depression Endpoints Research (FINDER) study: final results of Italian patients with depression

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Factors Influencing Depression Endpoints Research (FINDER) is a 6-month, prospective, observational study carried out in 12 European countries aimed at investigating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in outpatients receiving treatment for a first or new depressive episode. The Italian HRQoL data at 6 months is described in this report, and the factors associated with HRQoL changes were determined.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months of treatment. HRQoL was measured using components of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36; mental component summary (MCS), physical component summary (PCS)) and the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D; visual analogue scale (VAS) and health status index (HSI)). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was adopted to evaluate depressive symptoms, while somatic and painful physical symptoms were assessed by using the 28-item Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI-28) and a VAS.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the initial 513 patients, 472 completed the 3-month observation and 466 the 6-month observation. The SF-36 and EQ-5D mean (± SD) scores showed HRQoL improvements at 3 months and a further smaller improvement at 6 months, with the most positive effects for SF-36 MCS (baseline 22.0 ± 9.2, 3 months 34.6 ± 10.0; 6 months 39.3 ± 9.5) and EQ-5D HSI (baseline 0.4 ± 0.3; 3 months 0.7 ± 0.3; 6 months 0.7 ± 0.2). Depression and anxiety symptoms (HADS-D mean at baseline 13.3 ± 4.2; HADS-A mean at baseline 12.2 ± 3.9) consistently decreased during the first 3 months (8.7 ± 4.3; 7.5 ± 3.6) and showed a further positive change at 6 months (6.9 ± 4.3; 5.8 ± 3.4). Somatic and painful symptoms (SSI and VAS) significantly decreased, with the most positive changes in the SSI-28 somatic item (mean at baseline 2.4 ± 0.7; mean change at 3 months: -0.5; 95% CI -0.6 to -0.5; mean change at 6 months: -0.7; 95% CI -0.8 to -0.7); in 'interference of overall pain with daily activities' (mean at baseline 45.2 ± 30.7; mean change at 3 months -17.4; 95% CI -20.0 to -14.8; mean change at 6 months -24.4; 95% CI -27.3 to -21.6) and in 'having pain while awake' (mean at baseline 41.1 ± 29.0; mean change at 3 months -13.7; 95% CI -15.9 to -11.5; mean change at 6 months -20.2; 95% CI -22.8 to -17.5) domains. The results from linear regression analyses showed that the antidepressant switch within classes was consistently associated with a worsening in SF-36 MCS, EQ-5D VAS and HSI compared to non-switching treatment. Furthermore, between-group antidepressants (AD) switch was associated with a worse SF-36 MCS and EQ-5D HSI. MCS (<it>P </it>= 0.028), PCS (<it>P </it>= 0.036) and HSI (<it>P </it>= 0.002) were inversely related to the number of each previous additional depressive episode. PCS (<it>P </it>= 0.009) and HSI (<it>P </it>= 0.005) were also less improved in patients suffering from a chronic medical condition. Moreover, PCS (<it>P </it>= 0.044) and EQ-5D VAS (<it>P </it>< 0.0001) worsening was consistently associated with the presence of a psychiatric illness in the 24 months before baseline. For every additional point on the SSI-somatic score and on the overall pain VAS score at baseline, HSI score were on average 0.062 (<it>P </it>< 0.001) and 0.001 (<it>P </it>= 0.005) smaller, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>After starting AD treatment, HRQoL improvements at 3 and 6 months were observed. However, several factors can negatively influence HRQoL, such as the presence of somatic and painful symptoms, the presence of any chronic medical condition or previous psychiatric illness.</p

Stimulant Reduction Intervention using Dosed Exercise (STRIDE) - CTN 0037: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is a need for novel approaches to the treatment of stimulant abuse and dependence. Clinical data examining the use of exercise as a treatment for the abuse of nicotine, alcohol, and other substances suggest that exercise may be a beneficial treatment for stimulant abuse, with direct effects on decreased use and craving. In addition, exercise has the potential to improve other health domains that may be adversely affected by stimulant use or its treatment, such as sleep disturbance, cognitive function, mood, weight gain, quality of life, and anhedonia, since it has been shown to improve many of these domains in a number of other clinical disorders. Furthermore, neurobiological evidence provides plausible mechanisms by which exercise could positively affect treatment outcomes. The current manuscript presents the rationale, design considerations, and study design of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Clinical Trials Network (CTN) CTN-0037 Stimulant Reduction Intervention using Dosed Exercise (STRIDE) study.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>STRIDE is a multisite randomized clinical trial that compares exercise to health education as potential treatments for stimulant abuse or dependence. This study will evaluate individuals diagnosed with stimulant abuse or dependence who are receiving treatment in a residential setting. Three hundred and thirty eligible and interested participants who provide informed consent will be randomized to one of two treatment arms: Vigorous Intensity High Dose Exercise Augmentation (DEI) or Health Education Intervention Augmentation (HEI). Both groups will receive TAU (i.e., usual care). The treatment arms are structured such that the quantity of visits is similar to allow for equivalent contact between groups. In both arms, participants will begin with supervised sessions 3 times per week during the 12-week acute phase of the study. Supervised sessions will be conducted as one-on-one (i.e., individual) sessions, although other participants may be exercising at the same time. Following the 12-week acute phase, participants will begin a 6-month continuation phase during which time they will attend one weekly supervised DEI or HEI session.</p> <p>Clinical Trials Registry</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov, <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01141608">NCT01141608</a></p> <p><url>http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01141608?term=Stimulant+Reduction+Intervention+using+Dosed+Exercise&rank=1</url></p

Applying refinement to the use of mice and rats in rheumatoid arthritis research

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a painful, chronic disorder and there is currently an unmet need for effective therapies that will benefit a wide range of patients. The research and development process for therapies and treatments currently involves in vivo studies, which have the potential to cause discomfort, pain or distress. This Working Group report focuses on identifying causes of suffering within commonly used mouse and rat ‘models’ of RA, describing practical refinements to help reduce suffering and improve welfare without compromising the scientific objectives. The report also discusses other, relevant topics including identifying and minimising sources of variation within in vivo RA studies, the potential to provide pain relief including analgesia, welfare assessment, humane endpoints, reporting standards and the potential to replace animals in RA research

Strategic use of new generation antidepressants for depression: SUN(^_^)D study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>After more than half a century of modern psychopharmacology, with billions of dollars spent on antidepressants annually world-wide, we lack good evidence to guide our everyday decisions in conducting antidepressant treatment of patients with major depression. First we did not know which antidepressant to use as first line treatment. Second we do not know which dosage we should be aiming at with that antidepressant. Because more than half of the patients with major depression starting treatment do not remit after adequate trial with the first agent, they will need a second line treatment. Dose escalation, augmentation and switching are the three often recommended second line strategies but we do not know which is better than the others. Moreover, we do not know when to start considering this second line treatment.</p> <p>The recently published multiple-treatments meta-analysis of 12 new generation antidepressants has provided some partial answers to the first question. Starting with these findings, this proposed trial aims to establish the optimum 1st line and 2nd line antidepressant treatment strategy among adult patients with a non-psychotic unipolar major depressive episode.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>SUN(^_^)D, the Strategic Use of New generation antidepressants for Depression, is an assessor-blinded, parallel-group, multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Step I is a cluster-randomised trial comparing titration up to the minimum vs maximum of the recommended dose range among patients starting with sertraline. The primary outcome is the change in the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 scores administered by a blinded rater via telephone at week 1 through 3. Step II is an individually randomised trial comparing staying on sertraline, augmentation of sertraline with mirtazapine, and switching to mirtazapine among patients who have not remitted on the first line treatment by week 3. The primary outcome is the change in the PHQ-9 scores at week 4 through 9. Step III represents a continuation phase to Steps I and II and aims to establish longer-term effectiveness and acceptability of the above-examined treatment strategies up to week 25. The trial is supported by the Grant-in-Aid by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>SUN(^_^)D promises to be a pragmatic large trial to answer important clinical questions that every clinician treating patients with major depression faces in his/her daily practices concerning its first- and second-line treatments.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01109693">NCT01109693</a></p

Mild Joint Symptoms Are Associated with Lower Risk of Falls than Asymptomatic Individuals with Radiological Evidence of Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) exacerbates skeletal muscle functioning, leading to postural instability and increased falls risk. However, the link between impaired physical function, OA and falls have not been elucidated. We investigated the role of impaired physical function as a potential mediator in the association between OA and falls. This study included 389 participants [229 fallers (≥2 falls or one injurious fall in the past 12 months), 160 non-fallers (no history of falls)], age (≥65 years) from a randomized controlled trial, the Malaysian Falls Assessment and Intervention Trial (MyFAIT). Physical function was assessed using Timed Up and Go (TUG) and Functional Reach (FR) tests. Knee and hip OA were diagnosed using three methods: Clinical, Radiological and Self-report. OA symptom severity was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). The total WOMAC score was categorized to asymptomatic, mild, moderate and severe symptoms. Individuals with radiological OA and ‘mild’ overall symptoms on the WOMAC score had reduced risk of falls compared to asymptomatic OA [OR: 0.402(0.172–0.940), p = 0.042]. Individuals with clinical OA and ‘severe’ overall symptoms had increased risk of falls compared to those with ‘mild’ OA [OR: 4.487(1.883–10.693), p = 0.005]. In individuals with radiological OA, mild symptoms appear protective of falls while those with clinical OA and severe symptoms have increased falls risk compared to those with mild symptoms. Both relationships between OA and falls were not mediated by physical limitations. Larger prospective studies are needed for further evaluation

Treatment patterns associated with Duloxetine and Venlafaxine use for Major Depressive Disorder

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Duloxetine and venlafaxine extended release (venlafaxine XR) are SNRIs indicated for the treatment of MDD. This study addresses whether duloxetine and venlafaxine XR are interchangeable in their patterns of use with patients who are depressed or are used more selectively based on treatment history, background characteristics, and presenting symptoms.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a retrospective analysis of an administrative insurance claims database. We studied patients in managed care with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with duloxetine or venlafaxine XR. Predictors of treatment and cost were assessed using Chi-square and logistic regression analyses of demographics and past-year medication use and comorbidities.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients with MDD treated with duloxetine (n = 9,641) versus venlafaxine XR (n = 8,514) tended to be older, slightly more likely to be female, and treated by a psychiatrist (<it>P </it>< 0.0001). In the prior year, more duloxetine patients (vs. venlafaxine XR) received ≥3 unique antidepressants (20.8% vs. 16.6%), ≥3 unique pain medications (25.5% vs. 15.6%), and had ≥8 unique diagnosed comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions (38.6% vs. 29.1%). The prior 6-month total health care costs were $1,731 higher for duloxetine than for venlafaxine XR and declined for both medications in the 6 months after treatment began. Logistic regression analysis revealed that 61% of duloxetine patients and 61% of venlafaxine XR patients were predictable from prior patient and treatment factors.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patients with MDD treated with duloxetine tended to have a more complex and costly antecedent clinical presentation compared with venlafaxine XR patients, suggesting that physicians do not use the medications interchangeably.</p